It's the difference between "belief in atheism," and "atheism is a belief."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism: A belief?
- Thread starter Orias
- Start date
As in 'belief in self' opposed to 'self is a belief'. I hope, I am near.
But damn. self is most likely a belief.
...
Yes. It can get confusing when the content of belief is conflated with belief. (Especially when that content is called "lack of belief.")
Last edited:
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
So, what is the verdict? Is atheism is a belief or not? And if it is, then what is it a belief in?
I'm good with going with whatever you decide.
Edit: To address the second part of your question, beliefs (like propositions) have "content," which is what is meaningfully being believed. If "lack of belief" is meaningful, then it can be content. (Personally, I think it is meaningful.)
Last edited:
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
I love to hear it. I think you and I should forget about all this theism and atheism, knowledge and belief crock, and we go grab a bottle of pinot grigio, some crab legs and a good french loaf. We'll sit by the shore eating our crab legs, with copious amounts of lemon and butter, while we read poetry to one another. I'll even pretend to admire some of that Leonard Cohen stuff you're so fond of. That's what I would decide.
If "pinot grigio" is spelled r-y-e (and I do believe it is), I could go for that.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but can I get in on this last part? I've had a severe hankerin for crab legs with precisely copious amounts of lemon and butter, I don't care a whit about knowledge and -isms, poetry's okay, add a Riesling to that pinot, and I'm a Cohen fan.
So...please?
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
Another Leonard Cohen fan ... That's cool. At least you like good food, although Riesling's a bit sweet for me. But that's all good ... We'll just pack multiple bottles of wine ... and whiskey, I suppose.
But no complaining when I break into my rendition of "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" with background conga drums.
Gloone
Well-Known Member
If you lack a belief it means you don't have that belief that others hold or claim to be true.
There is actually a really good Wiki article on all of this that looks like it has been updated over the past couple months.
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is actually a really good Wiki article on all of this that looks like it has been updated over the past couple months.
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes, I'd say that last line pretty much sums up your post.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Yay!
T.S. Eliot set to congas? I could dig that. I'll bring my Italian aria songbook.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Only to those who do believe in gods. I suspect that, in most cases, the two things have the same root.
Wombat
Active Member
I wasn't compairing "insoluble".I was looking to the 'hedging' of conviction with "pretty strong"
. i.e. "a pretty strong conviction" but not complete...not firm, not absolute, but a conviction prefaced and hedged.
Along the lines of- Anyone who appreciates a bottle of pinot grigio, some crab legs and a good french loaf sounds like a fine and decent fellow but I have a pretty strong conviction that when he refers to "pretending to admire some of that Leonard Cohen stuff" doubt arises.
It is not a belief or firm conviction that he is not a fine and decent fellow just a pretty strong conviction.
Here the additional context adds weight to the uncertainty...but I believe such to be also the case with Huxley's statement in original context. He does not strike me to be speaking of any matter in relation to God with absolute certainty...he has a conviction, it is "pretty strong"...but not complete.
?
Perhaps others read otherwise.
"Words....Too oft but vague shadows of meanings".
It still looks the same to me, Wombat. Sorry if you think it is clarified already, but... in which way is Huxley's definition of Agnosticism not identical to mine?
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Ellipses question mark.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
This thread and the previous argument from whence it sprang demonstrate perfectly why I rarely refer to myself as an 'atheist'. And if I do refer to myself in such a way, it is generally because I'm engaged in a 'good faith' debate with someone whom I know is going to be open, honest and sincere in their conversation.
Atheism is not a belief. It is not a belief that gods don't exist. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.
I consider myself an atheist. I didn't before joining RF. I too was confused initially on the definition of atheism and what such a position entails. I thought too that it required one to take a certain stance on the position that gods do not exist--to state as much with a surety of belief.
I was wrong. I admit that openly on a public forum. Yes, lap it up, suckers, while you can because I don't make such admissions regularly. After reading some of the posts in this thread, it seems some others have a similar aversion to admitting they are wrong or mistaken.
However, if I am still wrong in my understanding of the word "atheism" and what it specifically means, then fine, I will again admit I'm wrong about my understanding of the definition of the word. I suppose those of us who hold no belief in gods because we have yet to be presented a model that satisfies our requirements of believability, we must start referring to ourselves as something altogether different.
But it doesn't seem like that is the real point of contention. It seems more like there are those trying to attribute to others beliefs they don't hold. I have read many of the posts on this thread, and it just seems like we have a few theists who want to create the proverbial 'strawman' by attributing to atheists, literally, a belief they do not have. The agnostic in me says there is really no way to prove definitively whether gods do or do not exist, and it appears some theists want to be able to claim that all atheists hold untenable positions just like they themselves do.
One can certainly hold the position that gods might exist but no one has presented them an acceptible model that seems plausible. That is my position and I believe it makes me an atheist. If you disagree with my use of the term "atheism", fine. I will not argue with you because language is a constantly evolving thing and perhaps the meaning of the word has changed ... again. However, if you disagree with me because you believe I must either be for or against something, that by denying one or more god models I am staking a position that none at all exist, then I say you are dead wrong.
Atheism is not a belief. It is not a belief that gods don't exist. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.
I consider myself an atheist. I didn't before joining RF. I too was confused initially on the definition of atheism and what such a position entails. I thought too that it required one to take a certain stance on the position that gods do not exist--to state as much with a surety of belief.
I was wrong. I admit that openly on a public forum. Yes, lap it up, suckers, while you can because I don't make such admissions regularly. After reading some of the posts in this thread, it seems some others have a similar aversion to admitting they are wrong or mistaken.
However, if I am still wrong in my understanding of the word "atheism" and what it specifically means, then fine, I will again admit I'm wrong about my understanding of the definition of the word. I suppose those of us who hold no belief in gods because we have yet to be presented a model that satisfies our requirements of believability, we must start referring to ourselves as something altogether different.
But it doesn't seem like that is the real point of contention. It seems more like there are those trying to attribute to others beliefs they don't hold. I have read many of the posts on this thread, and it just seems like we have a few theists who want to create the proverbial 'strawman' by attributing to atheists, literally, a belief they do not have. The agnostic in me says there is really no way to prove definitively whether gods do or do not exist, and it appears some theists want to be able to claim that all atheists hold untenable positions just like they themselves do.
One can certainly hold the position that gods might exist but no one has presented them an acceptible model that seems plausible. That is my position and I believe it makes me an atheist. If you disagree with my use of the term "atheism", fine. I will not argue with you because language is a constantly evolving thing and perhaps the meaning of the word has changed ... again. However, if you disagree with me because you believe I must either be for or against something, that by denying one or more god models I am staking a position that none at all exist, then I say you are dead wrong.
From Wikipedia
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]
...